Comparing performance of DPP, Aperture, Capture One, Lightroom and DxO

[VirtualRain]

This afternoon, I spent some time compiling a video that demonstrates the lack of performance in a lot of these photo adjustment applications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX7urEQhzM8
(watch in 1080p if possible)

It was both surprising and disappointing. Surprising because Aperture actually performs better than the rest despite it's reputation to the contrary. It was also disappointing to see just how bad some of these apps are on what is arguably a very powerful computer.

Admittedly, I'm running these on a 4K display which is a lot of pixels to update, so perhaps others will see better performance using displays with less pixels.

Interested what others are seeing on your system... Is it the 4K displays that is killing performance here, or are these apps just dogs?! Anyone else running 4K displays or a Retina iMac that can comment on performance compared to what's in the video?

 

[maflynn]

It was both surprising and disappointing. Surprising because Aperture actually performs better than the rest despite it's reputation to the contrary.

I don't know its reputation on performance, but for intents and purposes, aperture is a dead product. There's really no reason to go to a product that Apple has stated will only receive a few minor compatibility updates, and is being replaced by Photos.

On a personal note, while performance can be important, its no the deciding factor for choosing a DAM. I'd rather get a product that edits and maintains my images the way I want them to, even if its at the expense of waiting.

I'm not knocking Aperture, but rather saying for my needs, other factors are of higher importance.

 

[VirtualRain]

I don't know its reputation on performance, but for intents and purposes, aperture is a dead product. There's really no reason to go to a product that Apple has stated will only receive a few minor compatibility updates, and is being replaced by Photos.

On a personal note, while performance can be important, its no the deciding factor for choosing a DAM. I'd rather get a product that edits and maintains my images the way I want them to, even if its at the expense of waiting.

I'm not knocking Aperture, but rather saying for my needs, other factors are of higher importance.

Agreed, but some folks complaining about Aperture performance might be in for quite a shock after switching to one of these other DAMs.

It's actually pretty shameful... The poor performance of some of these apps. I wonder if it's an artifact of porting a Windows program to OS X or just lazy programming?

 

[MCAsan]

Obviously DPP is Canon only. But I wonder if the relative performance differences are independent of the specific type of raw file (i.e. Nikon, Canon, Olympus...etc.)

Interesting that Aperture after all these years is still one of the best DAM/editors. Maybe LR6 which will be 64bit will kick up the performance.

 

[Attonine]

Interesting, and disappointing. I have a 2009 17" MBP, 8GB RAM, SSD. So a nearly 6 yr old portable. I use Aperture with a referenced library on an external g-tech FW800 drive. Aperture responds pretty much the same as on the set-up in the video. Big surprise. My expectation would be that it would fly and be silky smooth on the setup used in the demo, with so much extra power at hand to throw at the app.

Eventually I guess I will have to move to LR. Again, big surprise, I would also expect this app to be much more responsive and smoother.

As an aside, Aperture has always had a reputation of being sluggish, maybe undeserved!

 

[maflynn]

I wonder if it's an artifact of porting a Windows program to OS X or just lazy programming?

I find lightroom rather sluggish on my SP3, so I don't think its that.

 

[VirtualRain]

Playing around further, it seems as though Capture One can perform much better on a smaller display (or even in a window sized smaller on a 4K display). Perhaps none of these apps have yet tackled the added effort in fluidly refreshing a photo viewed on a 4K display. However, if Aperture can do it (with minimal to no development in recent years) you would think the mainstream apps would be ahead of the game on this

 

[notrack]

I have tested Aperture against C1 and LR and found it in no way behind. C1 seems a little slower in rebuilding the picture during edits (current model 16GB pcie SSD rMBP 15''). Although people call it old and dead, I think it is still the best option in performance, features and usability.

 

[maflynn]

When I was trying out C1, I didn't find the performance overly slow. What pushed me away was the UI, lack of direct plugins (though you can round trip) and social media tie ins. With LR and Aperture I can upload to social sites and other sites such as smugmug. A nice to have feature but that last quibble of mine wasn't a show stopper.

 

[LV426]

I don't know its reputation on performance, but for intents and purposes, aperture is a dead product. There's really no reason to go to a product that Apple has stated will only receive a few minor compatibility updates, and is being replaced by Photos.

On a personal note, while performance can be important, its no the deciding factor for choosing a DAM. I'd rather get a product that edits and maintains my images the way I want them to, even if its at the expense of waiting.

I'm not knocking Aperture, but rather saying for my needs, other factors are of higher importance.

Aperture is not dead. You can buy it now, and it will be supported on OS upgrades for several years to come. If this were not the case, you would not be able to buy an Apple support plan.

Personally, I'm happy to carry on using Aperture for the time being. I certainly wouldn't want to revert to Lightroom. But, hey, each to their own.

 

[JDDavis]

Aperture is not dead. You can buy it now, and it will be supported on OS upgrades for several years to come. If this were not the case, you would not be able to buy an Apple support plan.

Personally, I'm happy to carry on using Aperture for the time being. I certainly wouldn't want to revert to Lightroom. But, hey, each to their own.

I'm more than happy to carry on using Aperture as well (for the time being). As an Aperture user though I have to realize that moving a large library of photos onto a new solution will be a big deal (unless you stay with Photos, perhaps). Two years from now Aperture will probably still work on my machine and with the OS. Apple will not have upgraded anything though in regards to Apertures capabilities. Hopefully, the digital camera RAW updates will still include Aperture. NIK will probably stop updating their Aperture plugins at some point and my library of images to transfer will have grown significantly.

There's no rush to abandon Aperture this weekend but there's impetus to have a plan and do your research. If you're ready to move on or settled on using Photos then it's probably of more value to your own time to get on with it.

 

[fa8362]

I use Lightroom 5 and it flies on my optimized 16 GB 2.3 i7 Mini with internal SSD and external SSD for Lightroom previews. Raw files are located on an external HD. People complaining about sluggish Lightroom performance will benefit from optimizing their computers for Lightroom. Definitely max out the RAM and use an SSD for the preview library.

 

[maflynn]

Aperture is not dead. You can buy it now, and it will be supported on OS upgrades for several years to come.

No it is dead. Apple has stated all development has ceased

According to TechCrunch, Apple will continue to provide compatibility updates to allow Aperture to run on OS X Yosemite, but development will stop

Source

A company representative told DPReview "with the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, there will be no new development of Aperture. When Photos for OS X ships next year, users will be able to migrate their existing Aperture libraries to Photos for OS X.

Aperture on OS X Yosemite will support RAW v6, meaning new RAW support added to OS X will be available to Aperture users on Yosemite."

Source

Just because apple is still selling it, doesn't mean they'll be issuing updates to it for years to come.
By all reports, apple has ceased developments, and we may see a mintor update or two while Yosemite is still the main OS. I wouldn't expect any further updates after that though.

Will it still work, yes it should, but there's no guarantee if a subsequent OS update breaks it

Edit:
And adding the final nail on the coffin:
Apple Confirms Aperture to Be Removed From Mac App Store After Launch of Photos for OS X

This should remove any and all doubt, that while the app will still work, it is dead.

 

[Daveg6]

Anyone try DPP 4

Has anyone tried DPP 4? My understanding is this is quite an upgrade over DPP 3. I am currently using Aperture also and since upgrading to Yosemite it no longer displays my raw files. They are either distorted or black. If I look at a JPEG first then all the raw files display that jpeg. Very frustrating and Apple has been no help. They just push you from one oblivious tech to another that has no clue what's going on. I'd like to see how DPP 4 stacks up.




MacPro 4.1, 28gb ram, 24" ACD, 24" Dell, Ati 5770
Canon 7d, 24-70L, 70-300L, Sigma 17-50 2.8, 85 1.4

 

[VirtualRain]

Has anyone tried DPP 4? My understanding is this is quite an upgrade over DPP 3. I am currently using Aperture also and since upgrading to Yosemite it no longer displays my raw files. They are either distorted or black. If I look at a JPEG first then all the raw files display that jpeg. Very frustrating and Apple has been no help. They just push you from one oblivious tech to another that has no clue what's going on. I'd like to see how DPP 4 stacks up.




MacPro 4.1, 28gb ram, 24" ACD, 24" Dell, Ati 5770
Canon 7d, 24-70L, 70-300L, Sigma 17-50 2.8, 85 1.4

I don't use it, however I did compare it's performance in post #1 (it was horrible), and I've also compared it to other RAW converters here... https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1845001/

 

[skaeight]

Aperture is dead:

https://www.apple.com/aperture/

When Photos for OS X is available this spring, Aperture will no longer be available for purchase from the Mac App Store.

It's shameful they're still selling it now.


Anyways regarding performance. I have a RiMac and my Aperture and LR performance are basically the same as what you were seeing. It all comes down to GPU. Apertue uses it via Core Image, others don't (yet - I'm hoping LR 6 brings GPU acceleration). This is exacerbated on 4K+ displays (I ran into reports of this after I had ordered my 5k Mac and it really gummed things up because prior to reading these reports I had settled on moving to LR. )

This was a contributing factor in my long deliberation about where to go post Aperture. It played heavily into me considering photos (until I realized it was a TOY, as others here have put it).

However, I've found LR performance to be acceptable, especially after following the optimization guidance. I did some pretty heavy editing last night, and Ya some of the performance on cropping and doing perspective transformations was a little annoying, but for most edits it's fine.

Again, I am really hoping we get GPU acceleration with LR 6. Reports of requiring a 64 bit OS are positive. I've also read some accounts from Adobe employees saying that "you'll like he performance of LR6 on your 5k iMac". So that's positve. Either way, for me it's the best option in a post Aperture world.

 

[VirtualRain]

Anyways regarding performance. I have a RiMac and my Aperture and LR performance are basically the same as what you were seeing. It all comes down to GPU. Apertue uses it via Core Image, others don't (yet - I'm hoping LR 6 brings GPU acceleration). This is exacerbated on 4K+ displays (I ran into reports of this after I had ordered my 5k Mac and it really gummed things up because prior to reading these reports I had settled on moving to LR. )

This was a contributing factor in my long deliberation about where to go post Aperture. It played heavily into me considering photos (until I realized it was a TOY, as others here have put it).

However, I've found LR performance to be acceptable, especially after following the optimization guidance. I did some pretty heavy editing last night, and Ya some of the performance on cropping and doing perspective transformations was a little annoying, but for most edits it's fine.

Again, I am really hoping we get GPU acceleration with LR 6. Reports of requiring a 64 bit OS are positive. I've also read some accounts from Adobe employees saying that "you'll like he performance of LR6 on your 5k iMac". So that's positve. Either way, for me it's the best option in a post Aperture world.

Good to hear. If LR6 has better performance and a customizable layout for the workspace, I'd consider it.

I'm finding Capture One performance tolerable although I'm hopeful they can address the refresh rate during adjustments on 4K+ displays.

 

[maflynn]

It's shameful they're still selling it now.

That's the thing that bothers me the most, they're killing it off, they've communicated that will be the case and yet they choosing to continue to sell it.

 

[rebby]

That's the thing that bothers me the most, they're killing it off, they've communicated that will be the case and yet they choosing to continue to sell it.

It does give people who don't have it, who may still want it, the opportunity to snap it up though. They have the same disclosure concerning Photos in the MAS so I don't have a problem w/them still selling Aperture at the moment. If they didn't have the disclosure, I may think otherwise.

 

[robgendreau]

If you are interested in LR, you can get it with a Canon inkjet printer for $60US at buydig.com; http://dealmac.com/Photoshop-Lightroom-5-w-Canon-Printer-for-60-free-shipping/1278313.html

 

[FredT2]

Interested what others are seeing on your system... Is it the 4K displays that is killing performance here, or are these apps just dogs?! Anyone else running 4K displays or a Retina iMac that can comment on performance compared to what's in the video?

Thanks for once again giving us some terrific information.

I'm running Lightroom on a retina iMac, and I see performance very similar to what you're seeing. I did quite a bit of experimenting and found that with Lightroom it's all about the number of pixels on the display when one is editing, which I think you have clearly verified here. Some people had claimed that the retina iMac was the problem, but we can see now that that is not the case. I'm sticking with Lightroom for now, hoping that version 6 brings us a nice surprise.

 

[VirtualRain]

Thanks for once again giving us some terrific information.

I'm running Lightroom on a retina iMac, and I see performance very similar to what you're seeing. I did quite a bit of experimenting and found that with Lightroom it's all about the number of pixels on the display when one is editing, which I think you have clearly verified here. Some people had claimed that the retina iMac was the problem, but we can see now that that is not the case. I'm sticking with Lightroom for now, hoping that version 6 brings us a nice surprise.

Yeah, some folks on the Capture One forums with 5K iMac's are also complaining about refresh rates. It seems these software vendors aren't assessing or addressing performance on 4K and 5K screens. Hopefully they get on this soon, as 4K and 5K screens are very appealing to photographers.

 

[MCAsan]

That's the thing that bothers me the most, they're killing it off, they've communicated that will be the case and yet they choosing to continue to sell it.

That is not as troubling as anyone purchasing it in its twilight days. What are they thinking?

 

[someoldguy]

This afternoon, I spent some time compiling a video that demonstrates the lack of performance in a lot of these photo adjustment applications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX7urEQhzM8
(watch in 1080p if possible)

It was both surprising and disappointing. Surprising because Aperture actually performs better than the rest despite it's reputation to the contrary. It was also disappointing to see just how bad some of these apps are on what is arguably a very powerful computer.

Admittedly, I'm running these on a 4K display which is a lot of pixels to update, so perhaps others will see better performance using displays with less pixels.

Interested what others are seeing on your system... Is it the 4K displays that is killing performance here, or are these apps just dogs?! Anyone else running 4K displays or a Retina iMac that can comment on performance compared to what's in the video?

First … thanks for taking the time to make the video and posting it . I've got a late 2009 27" iMac i5 , 16 Gig ram , 2 Tb . HDD and am running LR 5 on it . Anyway , the LR5 runs smoothly , images open right up , adjustments are smooth .DPP is also smooth ( though the software is still a pig IMHO) . Might be a 4K issue.

 

[VirtualRain]

First … thanks for taking the time to make the video and posting it . I've got a late 2009 27" iMac i5 , 16 Gig ram , 2 Tb . HDD and am running LR 5 on it . Anyway , the LR5 runs smoothly , images open right up , adjustments are smooth .DPP is also smooth ( though the software is still a pig IMHO) . Might be a 4K issue.

Thanks... and yep... it seems 4K or 5K screens are what reveal the issues.